So when I say that the Green Party is living in the past if they nominate Nader, I mean that nobody new is going to be drawn into the party to vote for him since there won’t be any positive press coverage. The only people that will vote for him are the ones that have done so in the past. People don’t want to educate themselves about the candidates by doing their own research. They want the media to tell them about the candidates. That’s why people like Biden never had a chance against Hillary. They were far more experienced and were willing to give concrete proposals rather than talk in vague generalities like she does. But the media never concentrated on them so the voters never knew about them. At least with McKinney, even if she does bring baggage in with her, she’ll get some serious press coverage. Yes, she slapped a cop. And yes, she is a 911 conspiratorialist, although I’m not sure how much that will hurt her as I’m surprised to still find people here and there who believe that the government had something to do with it. And these people aren’t “kooks”. That coverage will invariably bring in some new people to the Green Party which will help it to grow. The Green Party needs to move beyond Nader if it hopes to reach a wider audience.

Incidentally, how familiar are your “friends and co-workers” with the Green Party, Nader’s past campaigns, 3rd party politics, ballot access issues, etc.?

I don’t have any dealbreaking problems with Cynthia McKinney and, in fact, admire & support her activism on behalf of communities that sorely need it (and I also am impressed with the people who have been speaking on her behalf at GP events), but the idea that she’ll get more votes than Nader would is bizarre. She is not anywhere near as well known, has significantly lower name recognition nationwide, and among those out in the general population who do know her, virtually all you will hear is ridicule of either the cop-slapping incident, her 9/11 “alternative theory” activism, or both. That is something the GP needs to think and strategize about should she be the nominee because it would make campaigning for her rather challenging. As I said, those aren’t dealbreakers for me if she’s the nominee, but they’re elements that cannot be ignored.

No one of any public repute has anything close to the stature Ralph Nader has in terms of ceaseless public advocacy on behalf of third party and independent candidates, ballot access, an end to the electoral college, etc. etc.. both during and in between election cycles, through education, public speaking, and thousands of major media appearances as well as numerous lawsuits. This is coming from someone with over thirty years of experience in 3rd party politics (i.e. me). Ralph has virtually singlehandedly put this subject on the map of American political discourse, and that is why only people who are clueless about these issues laugh when the subject of him running for president comes up.

Also, those who follow Nader in the media know that over the past couple of years he has urged several other people to run for president (Bill Moyers and Jim Hightower come to mind) but they’ve all declined. He’s said in interviews many times that the Democrats (or anybody else) is free to take all of his issues away from him; that there’s no proprietary ownership restriction on his ideas. Like Norman Thomas, Nader would LOVE to be made irrelevant by having his ideas implemented by others. He has indicated this time and again on talk shows and in question and answer sessions. But that’s not happening, and no other widely known public figure is stepping into the ring who will carry the same agenda.